1. ' MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J.-It is case of the petitioners that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed in respect of property bearing khewat and Khatooni No,31/31, Khasra No, 179, Mouza Balan Northern alias Choot Dasht by the respondents, wherein they claimed that their predecessor-in-interest Mst. Mah Ganj was owner of the property from time of her forefathers.
2. As her children were minors, while becoming major they gone abroad for business purposes, on their back the Government entered property in dispute in its own name. The suit was contested by the present petitioners on legal and factual grounds. Issues were framed, evidences of the parties were recorded, whereafter, the trial court dismissed the suit through judgment made on 31-10- 2007. The appeal filed by the respondent was accepted by the appellate court, while decreed the suit through judgment made on 5-1-2008. Being aggrieved of the same the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition, wherein it is their contention that the appellate court failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case. The suit filed by the respondents was barred by 20/25 years, material contradictions were in the evidence, furthermore, the respondents are not in possession of property in question, rather the same is in possession of the petitioner, proper court-fee has not been paid, these material points are not considered by the appellate court. The petitioners have prayed for setting aside of impugned order and restoration of order of the trial court.
3. ' Parties through counsel are heard, while record is perused. As per learned counsel for the petitioners the appellate court has not discussed any issue, nor give findings on the same. Further, as the settlement of the area was made in 1994 while the respondents filed suit in 2006, surely the suit was hit by limitation thus not maintainable, but the appellate court wrongly decided this issue.
4. Furthermore, the respondents are out of possession, while ownership can be declared on basis of possession only. It is further contended that the respondents have not produced any document about their ownership. In rebuttal it is contention of the counsel for the respondents that present revision petition is filed beyond provided period being time barred thus not maintainable. Further, it has not been denied by the petitioners that the Khasra No, 179, Khatooni No,31 are not of the property in question.
5. ' The first point which is required to be considered before touching merits of the case is that whether the present revision petition is filed within the provided period or not. The provided period for filing revision petition is ninety days of the decision of subordinate court. In present case revision petition is filed on 13-3-2008 against decree and judgment made on 5-1-2008 by Majlis-e-Shoora, Mekran. The time is to be counted from the date when the copy of said judgment is provided to the petitioners. As per record the copy of judgment was provided to the petitioners on 10-1-2008. As such the 90 days expires in April 2008, while the present petition is filed on 31-3-2008 much before expiry of the provided period thus very much within time. The objection is baseless which is rejected.
6. ' The respondents claimed to be owners of land in question bearing khewat and khatooni No,31/31 Khasra No, 179, Mouza Balan Northern alias Choot Dasht. According to them the property in question was owned by one Mst. Mah Ganj their predecessor-in-interest from time of their forefathers without any intervention, while they cultivate the same, existence of dams therein establish their ownership, the petitioners in collusion with Revenue Authorities entered the property in question in its name in their absence. In reply the petitioners/defendants strongly denied their title and also their possession. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit, as the respondents/plaintiffs failed to establish their title and also the suit has been filed beyond period of limitation through judgment made on 31-10-2007. While the appellate court accepted the appeal filed by respondents/plaintiffs through judgment made on 5-1-2008 thereby declared the respondents/plaintiffs as owners of property in question, while it is further held that the suit is filed within provided period.
7. ' The respondents/plaintiffs claimed to be owners of property in question bearing khasra No, 179, Khewat/Khatooni No,31/31 situated in Mouza Balan Northern alias Choot Dasht. They claimed it to be their ancestral property. As the title is denied, therefore, the onus lies upon the respondents/plaintiffs to establish their ownership in respect of property in question. But as per record the respondents/ plaintiffs only produced two oral witnesses and recorded their statement through attorney. Though they claimed that the property in question was owned by their mother Mst. Mah Ganj, but no title deed in her favour is produced by them before the trial Court. Further, none of their witnesses clarified that how the property in question devolved upon said Mst. Mah Ganj. Even the attorney appeared on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs, also failed to disclose the source from which the property in question devolved upon said Mah Ganj. He is further unable to disclose that when the disputed mutation entries were made. Rather it is his only contention that Mst. Mah Ganj was Pardah observing lady, while her sons were small and becoming grown up they went outside the area for business purposes, the Revenue Authorities while declaring the disputed property as {{URDU TEXT}} entered it in name of the State. But he completely failed to specify the date or year when said settlement was carried out. The appellate court while deciding the appeal held that the respondents/ appellants produced specific evidence in respect of possession and presence of dams, but the trial Court failed to assess the same properly. The appellate court simply relied on oral statements of the witnesses appeared from side of the plaintiffs/ respondents.
8. Appellate court neither discussed, nor analyzed the material present on record. No documentary evidence was produced, nor the witnesses appeared during trial deposed specifically about the ownership of the respondents/plaintiffs and the channel through which property in question devolved upon the respondents/ plaintiffs.
9. ' As far as point of limitation is concerned, the learned appellate court while deciding the issue held that as the record reveals that the respondents/plaintiffs got knowledge about the mutation in question in near past, while cause of action accrues to them one week back as such the suit is not time barred. Though it is an established principle of law that the time starts from the date of knowledge. Even in such case it is the respondents/plaintiffs who have to establish the date of their knowledge about the disputed mutation entry, as it is an admitted position that disputed entry in Revenue Record was made 20/25 years, rather in 1994. But in same respect also no specific evidence has come on record from side of the respondents/plaintiffs. Their witnesses only deposed that Mst. Mah Ganj was a Pardah observing lady, while her two elder sons were out of country for business, while two were minors and were along with her. Even their attorney was also unable to disclose the specific date or year when the respondents/plaintiffs got knowledge about the same.
10. They have completely failed to discharge the burden lies on them. The learned appellate court in absence of any specific evidence simply relied on contention raised by the respondents/ plaintiffs, thereby held that the suit is filed well within time.
11. On both the issues the appellate court takes an erroneous view. The findings given are on no basis.
12. There is nothing on record from which it can be ascertained that previously property in question was ever in possession of the respondents/plaintiffs being owners of the same. Further, there is no explanation about delay accrued in filing of the suit. There is nothing on record that which of the respondent/plaintiffs were out of country or area and who were minors, when did Mst. Mah Ganj died and in all these years who managed the property. The burden lies on the respondents/plaintiffs, who completely failed to discharge the same. They slept over their rights thus they have to bear the consequences. The trial court rightly held that the suit is hit by limitation, thus not maintainable.
13. ' In view of above discussion, the revision petition is accepted. The order made on 5-1-2008 by Majlis-e-Shoora Mekran is set aside, while the order made on 31-10-2007 passed by Qazi Dasht is hereby upheld.
14. ' No orders as to costs.